PITMAN v. First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARVIN RODNEY PITMAN, Case No. 24-cv-02852-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 10 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants.

14 Plaintiff Marvin Rodney Pitman has filed this action in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because he is a resident of Oregon and defendants reside in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (court has jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different States). At a case management conference on August 16, 2024, the Court set a deadline of October 18, 2024, for the amendment of the complaint. Plaintiff has now filed the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28. The amended complaint alleges that defendant Shannon Pappas “reported to the San Mateo Police Department that Plaintiff had made a life- threatening call to him. This report was false, in that Defendant Pappas’ recounting of Pitman’s call to him was exaggerated and embellished.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff sues for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (2) aiding and abetting. The complaint seeks monetary damages, among other relief.

25 However, both the amended and original complaint are silent as to the amount of damages.

26 See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 28. The federal courts “are obligated to consider sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.” Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) facially evident from the . .. complaint that the controversy involves more than $75,000[,]” plaintiff || ishereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than October 29, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: October 22, 2024 SAN ILLSTON 8 United States District Judge

= 17 Z 18